on April 24 at 3:45 p.m.
It was not clear after arguments on Wednesday how the court will rule in a dispute over whether Idaho’s general ban on abortion overrides a federal law requiring hospitals that participate in Medicare to provide emergency stabilizing care. The court’s decision will have a particular impact in the six states that lack exemptions to abortion bans to protect the health of the mother.
Idaho Solicitor General Joshua Turner argues before the court on Wednesday. (William Hennessy)
on April 23 at 5:46 p.m.
The court heard argument on Monday in Smith v. Spizziri, another case about pre-dispute arbitration agreements. The issue in Smith is what a court should do with a lawsuit if it sends the case to arbitration. The justices seemed to think it makes more sense to let the case wait on the docket to dismiss it and force the plaintiff to refile after the arbitration.
on April 18 at 9:31 a.m.
The justices on Thursday will hear arguments over former President Donald Trump’s claim that he is immune from criminal prosecution for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol. Trump argues that, because he was president at the time, he cannot now be tried. His trial in Washington, D.C., remains on hold as the Supreme Court weighs in.
on April 22 at 5:49 p.m.
The court heard arguments on Monday over whether an Oregon town’s law that fines people who are homeless for using items for protection from the elements while sleeping in public spaces is constitutional. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, for one, noted that he did not see how the laws would help to address the homelessness. But it was by no means clear, after a lengthy argument, how the justices will rule in the case.
In this video, Nate Mowry interviews attorney Richard Bernstein. Bernstein filed “friend of the court” briefs on the behalf of current and former government officials in Fischer v. United States and Trump v. United States. He speaks on the impact of the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol on the legal system and the country at large.
Continue ReadingAt 10 a.m. EDT, the justices will hear oral argument in Moyle v. U.S. Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Wednesday morning read:
Less than a month after the justices heard oral arguments in a case seeking to roll back access to one of the drugs used in medication abortions, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday in another case involving abortion. At issue in Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States is whether emergency rooms in Idaho can provide abortions to pregnant women in an emergency. The Biden administration contends that a federal law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act can in some narrow circumstances trump a state law that criminalizes most abortions in the state. The state rejects the government’s interpretation of EMTALA as “an exercise of raw executive power,” while its Republican legislature condemns it as “an intolerable federal power grab.” They counter that the law does not require physicians to provide specific medical treatments, much less requires hospitals to perform abortions.
The case before the court on Wednesday began nearly two years ago in a federal court in Idaho. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overturning the constitutional right to an abortion, the Biden administration argued that EMTALA – which requires emergency rooms that participate in Medicare to provide “necessary stabilizing treatment” – supersedes an Idaho law that makes it a crime to provide an abortion except in a handful of narrow circumstances, including to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.
Continue ReadingThe justices will hear oral argument in Department of State v. Muñoz and Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney today. Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Tuesday morning read:
Though still far behind the number of cases granted for the next term this time last year, the court on Monday added two new cases to its docket for the 2024-2025 term. The justices agreed to weigh in on a challenge to a rule by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regulating so-called “ghost guns” – firearms without serial numbers that virtually anyone can assemble from parts, often purchased in a kit. Garland v. VanDerStok was one of two cases granted on Monday on a list of orders from the justices’ private conference last week.
The dispute over the “ghost guns” rule is one with which the justices were already familiar. Last June, a federal district judge in Fort Worth, Texas, barred the ATF from enforcing the rule anywhere in the United States. U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor agreed with manufacturers and sellers of ghost gun kits and parts that applying the rule to ghost guns was inconsistent with federal firearms laws. When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which hears appeals from federal trial courts in Texas, declined to put O’Connor’s ruling on hold, the Biden administration came to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to step in.
Continue Reading
